4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Tallinn.
 
The first set of proceedings
5.  The applicant's father died in 1989. On 16 March 2001 a lawyer carried out the distribution of the estate, the applicant and his brother being its beneficiaries.
6.  On 17 September 2001 the applicant lodged a civil action against his brother with the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätt) contesting the distribution.
7.  On 8 October 2001 the court requested the applicant to supplement his application for a summons to be issued. It urged the applicant to give further particulars of his claims and the circumstances on which they were based and to indicate the evidence that he wished to present and what each piece of evidence was intended to prove, as required by Chapter 5, Article 2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure (oikeudenkäymiskaari, rättegångsbalken, 4/1734 with later amendments). The court further referred to Chapter 5, Article 6 of the Code, noting that in case of failure to comply with the request, the court could declare the action inadmissible or dismiss it.
8.  The applicant filed two submissions, dated 22 October 2001 and 2 April 2002.
9.  On 7 March 2003 the court sent the applicant another request, finding his submissions to be so incomplete and unclear that the defendant would not be able to respond to his action in an appropriate manner.
10.  The applicant filed two submissions, dated 31 March and 17 April 2003.
11.  On 23 July 2003 the defendant filed with the court his response to the action. He requested that it be declared inadmissible or dismissed stating, inter alia, that he was unable to respond to the claims due to the obscurity of the applicant's submissions.
12.  On 8 August 2003 the court requested the applicant to submit a detailed statement in reply to the defendant's pleading. It further urged the applicant to consider employing the services of a lawyer.
13.  The applicant filed five submissions between 18 August and 7 September 2003.
14.  On 9 September 2003 the District Court ruled that the applicant's action was inadmissible as his submissions to the court were so incomplete that they could not form a basis for the proceedings. The court referred to Chapter 5, Article 6 of the Code of Judicial Procedure in that connection.
15.  The applicant appealed against the decision to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten). In its decision of 1 July 2004 the appellate court stated, inter alia, that the applicant's application for a summons and his supplementary submissions thereto were confused in several parts and difficult to understand. However, it could be deduced from his submissions that his claims concerned an alleged advance on the inheritance received by his brother and compensation due to the applicant for his own work in the interests of the estate. The court found that the applicant had sufficiently explained those circumstances which formed the grounds for his action and that he had even submitted monetary claims with accompanying explanations. The court concluded that the District Court should not have ruled the action inadmissible and remitted the case to that court. It ordered the District Court to open the examination of the case of its own motion after one month had elapsed from the date when the Court of Appeal's decision had gained legal force.
16.  On 3 February 2005 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the defendant leave to appeal and the above decision became legally binding.
17.  On 5 May 2006 the Helsinki District Court dismissed the applicant's action mainly for lack of evidence in support of his claims.
18.  On 19 June 2007 the Helsinki Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal endorsing the lower court's reasoning for the most part.
19.  On 26 February 2008 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
 
The second set of proceedings
20.  The applicant's mother died in 1999. The distribution of the estate, of which the applicant and his brother were the beneficiaries, was carried out by a lawyer on 27 December 2001.
21.  On 11 January 2002 the applicant lodged a civil action against his brother and the lawyer with the Helsinki District Court contesting the distribution. On 2 April 2002 he filed another submission regarding the same issue.
22.  On 7 March 2003 the court ordered the applicant to supplement his application for a summons to be issued much in the same manner as in the two requests concerning the applicant's first action.
23.  The applicant filed three submissions between 19 March and 17 April 2003.
24.  The defendants submitted their responses to the court on 23 and 28 July 2003. They both requested that the action be declared inadmissible or dismissed stating, inter alia, that they were unable to respond to the subject matter due to the obscurity of the applicant's submissions.
25.  On 8 August 2003 the court requested the applicant to submit a detailed statement in response to those pleadings.
26.  The applicant filed three submissions between 18 August and 7 September 2003.
27.  On 9 September 2003 the District Court ruled that the applicant's action was inadmissible on similar grounds as in the case concerning his father's estate.
28.  The applicant appealed against the inadmissibility decision to the Helsinki Court of Appeal as regarded the claims against his brother. As to the lawyer, his appeal only concerned the costs and expenses incurred in the lower court proceedings. On 1 July 2004 the appellate court found that the applicant's action had not been so incomplete as to allow the District Court to declare it inadmissible. This case was also remitted to the District Court for examination on the merits.
29.  On 3 February 2005 the Supreme Court refused the applicant's brother leave to appeal and the Court of Appeal's decision concerning remittal became legally binding.
30.  On 5 May 2006 the Helsinki District Court dismissed the applicant's action mainly for lack of evidence in support of his claims.
31.  On 19 June 2007 the Helsinki Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal endorsing the lower court's reasoning for the most part.
32.  On 26 February 2008 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.